The translation as "life force" is inaccurate. When the philosopher said that, he was talking about a enigmatic force that he said drove matter to diversify and evolve. He does not even claim it to be supernatural, as supernatural would defy the purpose (how can something be natural if ti arose supernaturally?).

OK, then explain the difference between this "enigmatic force that has not been defined" and an "intelligent designer". The ID crowd doesn't specify their designer, either. I say this is a bunch of new-age excrement, no matter how you look at it: unnecessary, ridiculously complicated, mystical and something that could easily be fed to the people to whom the movie in the title has been made for. Also, completely unscientific and useless.

goatmanejy wrote:

An intelligent Designer is just the way people reconcile creationism and evolution. It helps people hold on to there faith without breaking any logical rules, which is fine by me.

Well, I could have a problem with that, actually. Instead of leaving religion and science in their respective areas, widely separated, they insist on mixing the two, just to be able to shove Jesus everywhere. I don't want Jesus in my evolution, I'm a happy descendant of a bunch of apes.

R_H, the giant panda has been doing fine for a few tens of thousand years now at least, and the lineage is millions of years old. I'd say thay have had enough time to go extinct, but only the appearance of mankind is going to cause it. Of course, it could be argued that the selective pressure against them just manifested itself and that their long-awaited time has finally come, but they do not really differ from other endangered animals. They did fine before us.

Yeah, evolution isn't perfect. Many mutations are the "wrong kind of adaption," if you will. Scientists have discovered very ancient, long-extinct "failed" species of hominid with features of more advanced species(sorry I don't have any specifics on hand for you). The said feature was then absent from the fossil record and the next immediately-following species, but then reappeared in a new species on down the line. It's evidence of the randomness of evolution--the trial and error way that it works.

Assuming the account of the aforementioned hominid is indeed accurate (I've never lain my eyes upon anything of the sort, but it sounds plausible), I would imagine the reason for its extinction would have been some over-shadowing negative genetic traits. Otherwise, it may have been the superior organism to its brethren, but failed to reproduce quickly enough and thus was killed by the environment (whether the actual environment or other animals).

Resident_Hazard wrote:

There is vastly more evidence of successful evolutionary traits simply because they were "successful." It's probably the reason evolution was/is seen as a straight line of advancement by some. Successful mutations lasted long enough to leave more in the fossil record. It would seem that, the smaller an organism is, and the faster it reproduces, the more likely it's mutations are to be successful or the less likely we are to witness failed mutations. We have fossil evidence of "failed" hominid mutations. However, viruses and insects and the like reproduce so quickly, and can change so fast, we don't really see a "failed" flu virus, or "failed" cockroach.

I think the Giant Panda is a funny animal in that, I think if there are laws to nature, the Giant Panda is one that is supposed to become extinct. It's a large bear-like animal that evolved to hunt and eat meat. Yet they live their lives eating foraging and eating bamboo. They either need to mutate into an animal made to be a herbivore, or they need to be allowed to simply die off. They look like a failed evolutionary creature that's kept partially successful because of human intervention--and perhaps the fact that they simply haven't been allowed the necessary time to drop into extinction.

Yes, but evolution isn't some linear progression. Due to the element of randomness (or, as it is in actuality, seeming randomness), for a single organism there may be several paths it could travel, evolutionarily. Using an ape, it could evolve into your rational, intelligent hominids (although sometimes the contrary seems truer) or merely increase in strength but not in intellectual capability. It could potentially even sprout wings, assuming the wings would be anatomically viable.

Resident_Hazard wrote:

I don't believe I've ever heard "cosmic radiation" has a role in evolution. I won't deny that it could, but I haven't heard that before. Where did you get that?

Many sources. Television shows, research, even literature. Heinlein mentions it for quite a long stretch in Starship Troopers.

There is vastly more evidence of successful evolutionary traits simply because they were "successful." It's probably the reason evolution was/is seen as a straight line of advancement by some. Successful mutations lasted long enough to leave more in the fossil record. It would seem that, the smaller an organism is, and the faster it reproduces, the more likely it's mutations are to be successful or the less likely we are to witness failed mutations. We have fossil evidence of "failed" hominid mutations. However, viruses and insects and the like reproduce so quickly, and can change so fast, we don't really see a "failed" flu virus, or "failed" cockroach.

I think the Giant Panda is a funny animal in that, I think if there are laws to nature, the Giant Panda is one that is supposed to become extinct. It's a large bear-like animal that evolved to hunt and eat meat. Yet they live their lives eating foraging and eating bamboo. They either need to mutate into an animal made to be a herbivore, or they need to be allowed to simply die off. They look like a failed evolutionary creature that's kept partially successful because of human intervention--and perhaps the fact that they simply haven't been allowed the necessary time to drop into extinction.

Yes, but evolution isn't some linear progression. Due to the element of randomness (or, as it is in actuality, seeming randomness), for a single organism there may be several paths it could travel, evolutionarily. Using an ape, it could evolve into your rational, intelligent hominids (although sometimes the contrary seems truer) or merely increase in strength but not in intellectual capability. It could potentially even sprout wings, assuming the wings would be anatomically viable.

Resident_Hazard wrote:

I don't believe I've ever heard "cosmic radiation" has a role in evolution. I won't deny that it could, but I haven't heard that before. Where did you get that?

Many sources. Television shows, research, even literature. Heinlein mentions it for quite a long stretch in Starship Troopers.

I know evolution isn't a linear process (as my paragraph before the Panda one states), I'm simply stating that I think the Giant Panda is destined for extinction fairly soon--on a global timetable (soon could be 50 to 1000 years). Even if mankind wasn't here to have disrupted Giant Panda numbers, I believe they were a species either on the way "out," or destined for some evolutionary changes, which may or may not be detrimental. They do not effeciently digest bamboo, they're stomachs were made for meat. Since it is such a large animal and so closely watched by humans, we may have actually stunted it's ability to "evolve."

I see Osmium inserted ultraviolet radiation as an evolutionary trigger. I hadn't considered that. To be honest, when I read "radiation" or "cosmic radiation" the first thing in my mind wasn't "rays from the sun." I will argue that, when I indicated "environment" as a primary motivator for evolution to take place, temperature and sunlight were, essentially, included in that as "environmental factors/traits."

Indeed, 'cosmic radiation' doesn't make me think of ultraviolet rays, which are known to cause mutations.

Giant pandas rarely mate in the wild, which is odd for any animal, though removal of habitat will have definitely made an impact upon them, so the anthropogenic causes aren't entirely outlawed from it, as they may just require larger areas than those they're given now as land is reclaimed for agricultural use, housing, or whatever. Animals with K-selected life strategies such as the giant panda, and apex predators such as large sharks are the ones that are most likely to suffer from human effects as their smaller populations are easier affected, and they take a long time to recover. Also, the long lives of such species mean that comparatively, evolution in such species would be much slower than it would by in say mayflies. Unless a mutation is seriously debilitating, it would usually establish some sort of foothold on a population, though usually the decreased fitness of such individuals means that they wouldn't make up a large part of the population at all before eventually waning in numbers enough to be erased from the population all together. Of course, with increased selective pressure, less fit mutations or species in general will become extinct sooner, obviously.

I'd also like to respond to goatmaejy - I have no idea what the FUCK you're jabbering about. Typing fast and not having time for corrections is not an excuse. Tidy up your damn text or else no matter how profound whatever it is you may be trying to say is, nobody will take it seriously if you're unable to articulate it to us in a sensical manner.

_________________Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing._________________
Robots drank my beer.

Indeed, 'cosmic radiation' doesn't make me think of ultraviolet rays, which are known to cause mutations.

Giant pandas rarely mate in the wild, which is odd for any animal, though removal of habitat will have definitely made an impact upon them, so the anthropogenic causes aren't entirely outlawed from it, as they may just require larger areas than those they're given now as land is reclaimed for agricultural use, housing, or whatever. Animals with K-selected life strategies such as the giant panda, and apex predators such as large sharks are the ones that are most likely to suffer from human effects as their smaller populations are easier affected, and they take a long time to recover. Also, the long lives of such species mean that comparatively, evolution in such species would be much slower than it would by in say mayflies. Unless a mutation is seriously debilitating, it would usually establish some sort of foothold on a population, though usually the decreased fitness of such individuals means that they wouldn't make up a large part of the population at all before eventually waning in numbers enough to be erased from the population all together. Of course, with increased selective pressure, less fit mutations or species in general will become extinct sooner, obviously.

I'd also like to respond to goatmaejy - I have no idea what the FUCK you're jabbering about. Typing fast and not having time for corrections is not an excuse. Tidy up your damn text or else no matter how profound whatever it is you may be trying to say is, nobody will take it seriously if you're unable to articulate it to us in a sensical manner.

Correct me if I am not, but cosmic radiation would be any source of radiation from the cosmos - ultraviolet, gamma, or any other particles (alpha, beta, though I imagine these cannot penetrate the atmosphere) or electromagnetic energy that would be the residual waves of, say, a supernova, light nonwithstanding.

Correct me if I am not, but cosmic radiation would be any source of radiation from the cosmos - ultraviolet, gamma, or any other particles (alpha, beta, though I imagine these cannot penetrate the atmosphere) or electromagnetic energy that would be the residual waves of, say, a supernova, light nonwithstanding.

Whilst I have a reasonable command of physics, I don't really have much knowledge of the sorts of particles that find their way into the Earth's atmosphere.

_________________Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing._________________
Robots drank my beer.

...I thought for ONCE we were going to have a film that actually had a look at the state of science today and be a reasonable discussion on evolution and intelligent design in general, and maybe a look at the relationship between science and religion without being a soapbox for either side...

You ARE talking about the ID crowd here y'know... Reasonable and unbiased aren't really in the vocabulary.

After all the Creationists put up a museum to "prove" their theory in Kentucky that basically maintains that humans walked with dinosaurs.

Correct me if I am not, but cosmic radiation would be any source of radiation from the cosmos - ultraviolet, gamma, or any other particles (alpha, beta, though I imagine these cannot penetrate the atmosphere) or electromagnetic energy that would be the residual waves of, say, a supernova, light nonwithstanding.

Whilst I have a reasonable command of physics, I don't really have much knowledge of the sorts of particles that find their way into the Earth's atmosphere.

Gamma rays can penetrate the atmosphere--so long as there is a powerful enough surge of them. For instance, a gamma ray burst from a star "not far" (in cosmic terms, say 500 light years or less) could, in theory, effectively wipe out all life on Earth.

Taken from Wikipedia:

A gamma ray burst at 6000 light years would result in mass extinction; a 1000 light year distant burst would be equivalent to a 100,000 megaton nuclear explosion. A burst 100 light years away would blow away the atmosphere, create tidal waves, and start to melt the surface of the Earth. A consensus seems to have been arrived at the fact that damage by a gamma ray burst would be very limited because of its very short duration, and the fact that it would only cover half the Earth, the other half being in its shadow. A sufficiently close gamma ray burst would however, result in serious damage to the atmosphere, shutting down communications (due to electro-magnetic disturbances), perhaps instantly wiping out half the ozone layer, and causing nitrogen-oxygen recombination, thereby generating acidic nitrogen oxides. These effects could diffuse across to the other side of the Earth, severely diminish the global food supply, and result in long-term climate and atmospheric changes and a mass extinction, reducing the global population to perhaps 10% of what it can now support. However, the damage from a gamma ray burst would probably be significantly greater than a supernova at the same distance.

I believe that, generally, gamma rays, may not be able to penetrate the atmosphere/magnetic field of the Earth, but a massive surge of them, as mentioned above would not only penetrate the atmosphere/magnetic field, but could potentially burn the atmosphere off the planet altogether. There are theories that gamma ray bursts in the past may have played roles in past mass extinctions.

Goddamn, astronomy is fun!

Aside from this, higher exposure to Gamma Rays can affect DNA, but most probably in only damaging ways--probably nothing that would be evolutionarily helpful. Gamma Rays are considered the most dangerous form of radiation from nuclear explosions because in the difficulty in shielding from them.

Gamma-rays are not stopped by the skin. They can induce DNA alteration by interfering with the genetic material of the cell. DNA double-strand breaks are generally accepted to be the most biologically significant lesion by which ionizing radiation causes cancer and hereditary disease.

A study done on Russian nuclear workers exposed to external whole-body gamma radiation at high cumulative doses shows the link between radiation exposure and death from leukemia, lung, liver, skeletal and other solid cancers. Alongside radiation, gamma-rays also produce thermal burn injuries and induce an immunosuppressive effect.

The translation as "life force" is inaccurate. When the philosopher said that, he was talking about a enigmatic force that he said drove matter to diversify and evolve. He does not even claim it to be supernatural, as supernatural would defy the purpose (how can something be natural if ti arose supernaturally?).

OK, then explain the difference between this "enigmatic force that has not been defined" and an "intelligent designer". The ID crowd doesn't specify their designer, either. I say this is a bunch of new-age excrement, no matter how you look at it: unnecessary, ridiculously complicated, mystical and something that could easily be fed to the people to whom the movie in the title has been made for. Also, completely unscientific and useless.

Intelligent Design - The belief that the universe was designed by an intelligent entity

My Theory - The belief that evolution was assisted by an unknown, natural medium

There completely different.

_________________I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.

Lord Slop wrote:

Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:

"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

I'd also like to respond to goatmaejy - I have no idea what the FUCK you're jabbering about. Typing fast and not having time for corrections is not an excuse. Tidy up your damn text or else no matter how profound whatever it is you may be trying to say is, nobody will take it seriously if you're unable to articulate it to us in a sensical manner.

Seeing as you just misspelled my screenname, I wont take you seriously either. But I am. Im not misspelling that much. Im in class and not supposed to be here. I dont have time to do major proofreading. Its not like this is a research paper or something.

_________________I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.

Lord Slop wrote:

Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:

"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

Intelligent Design - The belief that the universe was designed by an intelligent entity

My Theory - The belief that evolution was assisted by an unknown, natural medium

There completely different.

Oooh! So one is evolution assisted by an unspecified non-existent intelligent supernatural factor, and the other is evolution assisted by an unspecified non-existent intelligent natural factor? I see. Why didn't I see the light earlier?

I'd also like to respond to goatmaejy - I have no idea what the FUCK you're jabbering about. Typing fast and not having time for corrections is not an excuse. Tidy up your damn text or else no matter how profound whatever it is you may be trying to say is, nobody will take it seriously if you're unable to articulate it to us in a sensical manner.

Seeing as you just misspelled my screenname, I wont take you seriously either. But I am. Im not misspelling that much. Im in class and not supposed to be here. I dont have time to do major proofreading. Its not like this is a research paper or something.

It was a typo and it's not like your screen name is more than a random jumble of letters in the first place.

Also, your spelling and grammatical errors are terrible, and numerous. I'm dyslexic and have a hard enough time reading text as it is, what you're writing is, to me, almost unreadable. Taking slightly longer to write your posts might be better, or better yet, not posting on an internet forum when you're supposed to be in school.

_________________Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing._________________
Robots drank my beer.

Intelligent Design - The belief that the universe was designed by an intelligent entity

My Theory - The belief that evolution was assisted by an unknown, natural medium

There completely different.

Oooh! So one is evolution assisted by an unspecified non-existent intelligent supernatural factor, and the other is evolution assisted by an unspecified non-existent intelligent natural factor? I see. Why didn't I see the light earlier?

Bullshit.

No, mine is evolution assisted by an unspecified natural factor. Intelligence is unnecessary for the theory. Intelligent design works on the proposition that evolution is to improbable and our planet is so fine-tuned for living that there must have been an intelligence guiding the process. My theory is that mutation occurs in bursts assisted by an unknown factor that is not present at modern times. Its not that hard to grasp the difference. Its a different concept approached from a different angle.

New comment: I just saw Expelled. I wasn't extremely impressed with the filmography, but was glad that it more-or-less stayed clear of creationism and the general "Evil Atheist Conspiracy" thing. I was impressed by Dawkins and intend to buy the God Delusion next time I go to the store, just to see what it has to say.

_________________I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.

Lord Slop wrote:

Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:

"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

I'd also like to respond to goatmaejy - I have no idea what the FUCK you're jabbering about. Typing fast and not having time for corrections is not an excuse. Tidy up your damn text or else no matter how profound whatever it is you may be trying to say is, nobody will take it seriously if you're unable to articulate it to us in a sensical manner.

Seeing as you just misspelled my screenname, I wont take you seriously either. But I am. Im not misspelling that much. Im in class and not supposed to be here. I dont have time to do major proofreading. Its not like this is a research paper or something.

It was a typo and it's not like your screen name is more than a random jumble of letters in the first place.

Also, your spelling and grammatical errors are terrible, and numerous. I'm dyslexic and have a hard enough time reading text as it is, what you're writing is, to me, almost unreadable. Taking slightly longer to write your posts might be better, or better yet, not posting on an internet forum when you're supposed to be in school.

Oh, hellyeah I have lots of grammatical errors. Im just not good on keeping grammar steady. I admit that. And my screenname actually does mean something, but only to me.
And school is just so boring. I enjoy coming here and debating to cool off from class.

_________________I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.

Lord Slop wrote:

Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:

"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

My theory is that mutation occurs in bursts assisted by an unknown factor that is not present at modern times. Its not that hard to grasp the difference. Its a different concept approached from a different angle.

And then the blunt question: if the "factor" simply causes mutations, why the hell is it necessary in the first place?

We still have radiation, chemicals, purely random copying errors in cell division, etc., all causing mutations. Why would a mystical, unknown factor be needed at all? We have enough mutations as it is, and if the factor does not guide the process in any sense (natural selection does that, after the mutations take place, if I'm reading you right), it's not necessary in the equation in any way.

Your theory gives no answers to a question that does not need to be asked. Actually, there is no question at all. It's a completely unnecessary hypothesis, in other words, just smelling of new-age crap to me, and bringing in unscientific mysticism into the discussion.

Wow! This thread has now come from ID propaganda to radiophysics and has thus turned out to be at least partly worthy after all.

DanFuckingLucas wrote:

Indeed, 'cosmic radiation' doesn't make me think of ultraviolet rays, which are known to cause mutations.

Noobbot wrote:

Correct me if I am not, but cosmic radiation would be any source of radiation from the cosmos - ultraviolet, gamma, or any other particles (alpha, beta, though I imagine these cannot penetrate the atmosphere) or electromagnetic energy that would be the residual waves of, say, a supernova, light nonwithstanding.

If you include solar radiation in the cosmic radiation then that's about right. Solar winds are worthy of a special mention of course. Otherwise the UV spectra and photons of lower energies are negligible - especially on the Earth surface. Just look at the brightest star you can see at night...

There the alpha and beta particles too are undetectable, though you need nothing more than an ordinary Geiger-Müller meter and some good shielding to measure the normally quite continuous level of gamma radiation.

What you'd include though really depends on the setting. On the Earth surface it (in most applications) makes sense to only care about what can actually reach me. It also makes sense to distinguish solar radiation from cosmic radiation, since the sun is the most important source. In airplanes you have more things to consider and in satellites you really have to think twice and buy the expensive components. To put it this way, your desktop computer would have a hard time surviving on the ISS.

goatmanejy wrote:

My theory is that mutation occurs in bursts assisted by an unknown factor that is not present at modern times. Its not that hard to grasp the difference. Its a different concept approached from a different angle.

How is the concept that there is one more mutative factor that we haven't found yet (or which has disappeared) different? The evolution would work as a concept even if some of the factors causing mutations today were to be removed. And subtraction is akin to addition. The idea that evolution happens in "bursts" (perhaps coinciding with environmental changes...) doesn't sound very fresh either.

What you do here (if I've understood it correctly) is concept-wise pointless. Adding one factor or increasing the level of another only affects details, it's doesn't really seem like a new concept or angle to me. Now, if the models require these fluctuations, if evidence exists for more factors or else I am not initiated enough to know. I don't suppose you're either so what exactly is your goal? Adding this or that just to mystify the theory with unproven ideas?

_________________

Wra1th1s wrote:

When I meant EVERY black metal band of course I don't mean EVERY black metal band.

No, mine is evolution assisted by an unspecified natural factor. Intelligence is unnecessary for the theory. Intelligent design works on the proposition that evolution is to improbable and our planet is so fine-tuned for living that there must have been an intelligence guiding the process. My theory is that mutation occurs in bursts assisted by an unknown factor that is not present at modern times. Its not that hard to grasp the difference. Its a different concept approached from a different angle.

Just out of curiosity, how familiar are you with genetics and evolution?

_________________Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing._________________
Robots drank my beer.

I'm going to throw in an anecdote since it's actually more on topic than the last few posts (which is not to say that the last few posts weren't interesting). Anyway, my parents visited me last week. I welcomed them, meeting them at a local coffee shop where they told me that they saw "Expelled" and really liked it. Anyway, my dad has apparently become a huge advocate of ID. I tried to explain everything that was wrong with the movie and ID on the basis of clips I've seen from the movie, transcripts, and my understanding of evolutionary theory. I explained that my Core Bio class actually covered ID, and that I had read several papers by major proponents of ID. On that basis, I rejected ID as nonsensical and entirely unscientific.

My parents seem to think that this entire opinion is the product of a biased, liberal pattern of indoctrination on the part of the college, whereupon my dad gave me some reading material he recommended: a copy of Rush Limbaugh's magazine.

I'm going to throw in an anecdote since it's actually more on topic than the last few posts (which is not to say that the last few posts weren't interesting). Anyway, my parents visited me last week. I welcomed them, meeting them at a local coffee shop where they told me that they saw "Expelled" and really liked it. Anyway, my dad has apparently become a huge advocate of ID. I tried to explain everything that was wrong with the movie and ID on the basis of clips I've seen from the movie, transcripts, and my understanding of evolutionary theory. I explained that my Core Bio class actually covered ID, and that I had read several papers by major proponents of ID. On that basis, I rejected ID as nonsensical and entirely unscientific.

My parents seem to think that this entire opinion is the product of a biased, liberal pattern of indoctrination on the part of the college, whereupon my dad gave me some reading material he recommended: a copy of Rush Limbaugh's magazine.

It's a typical reaction of the ID Crowd, it seems - buried in unscience and refusing to accept anything else. I remember a cartoon that may have been posted on here, but it basically went with two or three scientists with some results or something, saying "Right, now we have the evidence, what conclusions can we draw?" and in the square underneath, two or three IDers / creationists, with a bible, saying "Right, now we have our theory, what evidence can we back it up with?"

_________________Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing._________________
Robots drank my beer.

I'm going to throw in an anecdote since it's actually more on topic than the last few posts (which is not to say that the last few posts weren't interesting). Anyway, my parents visited me last week. I welcomed them, meeting them at a local coffee shop where they told me that they saw "Expelled" and really liked it. Anyway, my dad has apparently become a huge advocate of ID. I tried to explain everything that was wrong with the movie and ID on the basis of clips I've seen from the movie, transcripts, and my understanding of evolutionary theory. I explained that my Core Bio class actually covered ID, and that I had read several papers by major proponents of ID. On that basis, I rejected ID as nonsensical and entirely unscientific.

My parents seem to think that this entire opinion is the product of a biased, liberal pattern of indoctrination on the part of the college, whereupon my dad gave me some reading material he recommended: a copy of Rush Limbaugh's magazine.

It's a typical reaction of the ID Crowd, it seems - buried in unscience and refusing to accept anything else. I remember a cartoon that may have been posted on here, but it basically went with two or three scientists with some results or something, saying "Right, now we have the evidence, what conclusions can we draw?" and in the square underneath, two or three IDers / creationists, with a bible, saying "Right, now we have our theory, what evidence can we back it up with?"

'Unscience' dances around what it really is - pseudoscience. Rejecting evidence that clearly contradicts their canon and developing severe intellectual tunnel vision is a common symptom of creationism and conservatism.

I'm going to throw in an anecdote since it's actually more on topic than the last few posts (which is not to say that the last few posts weren't interesting). Anyway, my parents visited me last week. I welcomed them, meeting them at a local coffee shop where they told me that they saw "Expelled" and really liked it. Anyway, my dad has apparently become a huge advocate of ID. I tried to explain everything that was wrong with the movie and ID on the basis of clips I've seen from the movie, transcripts, and my understanding of evolutionary theory. I explained that my Core Bio class actually covered ID, and that I had read several papers by major proponents of ID. On that basis, I rejected ID as nonsensical and entirely unscientific.

My parents seem to think that this entire opinion is the product of a biased, liberal pattern of indoctrination on the part of the college, whereupon my dad gave me some reading material he recommended: a copy of Rush Limbaugh's magazine.

It's a typical reaction of the ID Crowd, it seems - buried in unscience and refusing to accept anything else. I remember a cartoon that may have been posted on here, but it basically went with two or three scientists with some results or something, saying "Right, now we have the evidence, what conclusions can we draw?" and in the square underneath, two or three IDers / creationists, with a bible, saying "Right, now we have our theory, what evidence can we back it up with?"

'Unscience' dances around what it really is - pseudoscience. Rejecting evidence that clearly contradicts their canon and developing severe intellectual tunnel vision is a common symptom of creationism and conservatism.

Unscience and pseudoscience are the same thing, so eh. But yes, they reject any evidence that disagrees with their theory and then call US the ones who won't accept other theories! It's outrageous.

_________________Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing._________________
Robots drank my beer.

I'm going to throw in an anecdote since it's actually more on topic than the last few posts (which is not to say that the last few posts weren't interesting). Anyway, my parents visited me last week. I welcomed them, meeting them at a local coffee shop where they told me that they saw "Expelled" and really liked it. Anyway, my dad has apparently become a huge advocate of ID. I tried to explain everything that was wrong with the movie and ID on the basis of clips I've seen from the movie, transcripts, and my understanding of evolutionary theory. I explained that my Core Bio class actually covered ID, and that I had read several papers by major proponents of ID. On that basis, I rejected ID as nonsensical and entirely unscientific.

My parents seem to think that this entire opinion is the product of a biased, liberal pattern of indoctrination on the part of the college, whereupon my dad gave me some reading material he recommended: a copy of Rush Limbaugh's magazine.

It's a typical reaction of the ID Crowd, it seems - buried in unscience and refusing to accept anything else. I remember a cartoon that may have been posted on here, but it basically went with two or three scientists with some results or something, saying "Right, now we have the evidence, what conclusions can we draw?" and in the square underneath, two or three IDers / creationists, with a bible, saying "Right, now we have our theory, what evidence can we back it up with?"

'Unscience' dances around what it really is - pseudoscience. Rejecting evidence that clearly contradicts their canon and developing severe intellectual tunnel vision is a common symptom of creationism and conservatism.

I think the political intertwining of ID and conservative political views is apalling and discrediting to people on that end of the spectrum--for instance, my wife is conservative and athiest. I'm more centrist, personally, but have right-leaning viewpoints. No doubt that somewhere out there there are liberal Christians and Jews who agree with ID, just as there are gay conservatives and athiest conservatives.

We really need to scrap the Democratic and Republican parties in the States. Each is getting to be too polarizing and strict in thier views, and neither can represent the majority of Americans. It's getting to the point that people tell people they shouldn't believe or think a certain way if they want to be seen as one or the other.

My theory is that mutation occurs in bursts assisted by an unknown factor that is not present at modern times. Its not that hard to grasp the difference. Its a different concept approached from a different angle.

How is the concept that there is one more mutative factor that we haven't found yet (or which has disappeared) different? The evolution would work as a concept even if some of the factors causing mutations today were to be removed. And subtraction is akin to addition. The idea that evolution happens in "bursts" (perhaps coinciding with environmental changes...) doesn't sound very fresh either.

What you do here (if I've understood it correctly) is concept-wise pointless. Adding one factor or increasing the level of another only affects details, it's doesn't really seem like a new concept or angle to me. Now, if the models require these fluctuations, if evidence exists for more factors or else I am not initiated enough to know. I don't suppose you're either so what exactly is your goal? Adding this or that just to mystify the theory with unproven ideas?

Yeah good point. I see totally what you mean. I know the idea of evolutionary bursts isnt really original, and my idea of the missing factor thing has been done in less vague terms many times before. I just think it makes sense.

I really dont see why this is generating so much flak. I made a mistake in voicing my theory, since its totally unformed and unproven.

_________________I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.

Lord Slop wrote:

Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:

"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

My theory is that mutation occurs in bursts assisted by an unknown factor that is not present at modern times. Its not that hard to grasp the difference. Its a different concept approached from a different angle.

And then the blunt question: if the "factor" simply causes mutations, why the hell is it necessary in the first place?

We still have radiation, chemicals, purely random copying errors in cell division, etc., all causing mutations. Why would a mystical, unknown factor be needed at all? We have enough mutations as it is, and if the factor does not guide the process in any sense (natural selection does that, after the mutations take place, if I'm reading you right), it's not necessary in the equation in any way.

Your theory gives no answers to a question that does not need to be asked. Actually, there is no question at all. It's a completely unnecessary hypothesis, in other words, just smelling of new-age crap to me, and bringing in unscientific mysticism into the discussion.

Well, the chemicals and radiation are exactly what Im talking about. A factor that causes mutation. I just voiced it vaguely. And the copying errors in the cells are so rare that it would make standard evolution extremely impropable. Having an additional factor would take out the impropability by generating large amounts of mutations which would then be weeded out by natural selection.

_________________I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.

Lord Slop wrote:

Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:

"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

Rates of spontaneous mutation per genome as measured in the laboratory are remarkably similar within broad groups of organisms but differ strikingly among groups. Mutation rates in RNA viruses, whose genomes contain ca. 104 bases, are roughly 1 per genome per replication for lytic viruses and roughly 0.1 per genome per replication for retroviruses and a retrotransposon. Mutation rates in microbes with DNA-based chromosomes are close to 1/300 per genome per replication; in this group, therefore, rates per base pair vary inversely and hugely as genome sizes vary from 6 x 103 to 4 x 107 bases or base pairs. Mutation rates in higher eukaryotes are roughly 0.1–100 per genome per sexual generation but are currently indistinguishable from 1/300 per cell division per effective genome (which excludes the fraction of the genome in which most mutations are neutral). It is now possible to specify some of the evolutionary forces that shape these diverse mutation rates.

What are everyone's thoughts on human evolution at this point? We have long since lost our survival of the fittest angle on evolution (to some degree), so that leaves natural/environmental factors beyond our control, which are few, and often do come in "bursts." And what if we were to control those? Maybe we really do control our own advancement as a species with technology in the long run.

and maybe Nevermore knows their shit!

_________________

mpawluk wrote:

OzzyApu wrote:

So if you'll be fucking chicks with Manowar condoms, does that really mean that Manowar is fucking your chick?

What are everyone's thoughts on human evolution at this point? We have long since lost our survival of the fittest angle on evolution (to some degree), so that leaves natural/environmental factors beyond our control, which are few, and often do come in "bursts." And what if we were to control those? Maybe we really do control our own advancement as a species with technology in the long run.

Environmental changes are approaching swiftly and have spiraled out of our control (at our current level of technology at least. Maybe we can reverse it eventually. Who knows?). Mankind may become extinct and be replaced by something else that fits the new climate.

_________________I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.

Lord Slop wrote:

Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:

"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

What are everyone's thoughts on human evolution at this point? We have long since lost our survival of the fittest angle on evolution (to some degree), so that leaves natural/environmental factors beyond our control, which are few, and often do come in "bursts." And what if we were to control those? Maybe we really do control our own advancement as a species with technology in the long run.

and maybe Nevermore knows their shit!

I personally believe that human technology and intervention has cancelled out evolution for homo sapiens. The only way we'll actually evolve beyond this point is if there is some massive catastrophe which wipes out 90% of the human race. Typically, evolution doesn't happen on large scale--it tends to require smaller populations. Well, last I read, at any rate.

Regardless of "the requirements" for evolution, I believe that the human race has eliminated most natural factors through technology and science. It's entirely possible that we are at our peak now.

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 11:13 amPosts: 110Location: United States of America

Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:56 pm

The only thing I have wrong with intelligent design being taught in schools is, which one? All religions have a creation myth. I would not expect mine to be taught to people who do not believe in it. The only agreeable alternative is to teach natural selection, which is a far more sound and reasonable theory than what any religion claims made the world.

Intelligent design is about as intelligent as astrology. How can you call it science when they come up with results they want to reach via "research" and then try to come up with ways to make it look sensible to simpleminded people instead of actually researching?